2392 replies to this topic

[FNG]

I believe Merc voted down any engine rule changes just recently. That would be a pretty good indicator they feel they have the best engine already.

[kumo7]

2014 minimum weight 691kg.
2025 minimum weight 800kg.

Power unit minimum weight increased by 1kg in that period. Battery rules have not changed - minimum 20kg, maximum 25kg, for the cells.

wow. PU engineers have been contributing to this sport.

[RedRabbit]

Posting images on this site is a nightmare so google world shipping routes and you soon realise the only way we get out of this mess is to stop non-essential world trade. I bought crumpets yesterday in Toronto that were made in England. Preposterous.

This is the stupidity of it all really, and why the war against personal vehicles by politicians is absurd if shipping and air travel isn't addressed.

Exporting food stuffs is one of the worst. We have the knowledge to produce the same thing locally anywhere.

I am quite glad my unfortunately fake news sparked an interesting discussion. (I don't even remember where I read it)

[Joseki]

I believe Merc voted down any engine rule changes just recently. That would be a pretty good indicator they feel they have the best engine already.

So did Honda and Audi to be fair.

[ferrarista]

https://www.motor.es...2025107764.html

Here they say Honda has problems with the ERS and RBPT also has issues in general.


https://www.motor.es...2025107728.html

Here, Petronas has gone for biofuel and it is not competitive, ARAMCO would have currently the best fuel.

https://www.the-race...tion-exclusive/

Here, Thomas (Mercedes) doesn’t think Ferrari will get it wrong again (like in 2014), Honda the same and all the manufacturers invested a lot in technology after 2014 and they are all similar now and nobody can spend its way out of the problems (like it was possible in 2014) as a budget cap is now present.

Many rumors, but still a lot of water under the bridge until March 2026.

Edited by ferrarista, 26 April 2025 - 10:21.

[Joseki]

Budget cap is an interesting topic.

 

Does it account for the yen absolutely tanking in value the past couple of years? Honda would have a massive spending advantage if not.

[danmills]

EV is a phase, a fad, and is not the future and sooner or later the penny will drop. Some companies are starting to pull the plug on investing because they consume a disgusting amount of resources and the pay off will not balance the amount put in for decades. It's a con.

 

The lithium graveyards are already vast.

 

The amount of infrastructure upgrades needed day to day is limited by resources and the time get there.

 

Non lithium high capacity battery tech and wireless electricity transfer need to be commercially available to all before that ever happens.

 

By then, new tech will have evolved rendering the EV movement obsolete.

 

Water. Hydrogen. Combustiable Biofuels. That is the future.

 

Imagine a Tesla and Model T Ford were left sealed in a barn for 50 years from now. You can be almost certain the Model T could be fired up quicker and be running again vs the Tesla.

 

I can't run a Makita electric drill from 35 years ago but can use a stanley hand drill from 1965.

 

Back to basics. Simpler things but improved efficiencies. Products today seem to be too clever in that they solve a lot of things, but a lot of the things they solve are self created that werent necessarily problems, sort of bloats and hyper inflates how good they really are.

 

Alexa does this with bulbs, Tesla does that with satnav. Turning a light on or using a map was never a problem per se, but both those items are deemed incredible.

Edited by danmills, 26 April 2025 - 11:24.

[Ali_G]

EV is a phase, a fad, and is not the future and sooner or later the penny will drop. Some companies are starting to pull the plug on investing because they consume a disgusting amount of resources and the pay off will not balance the amount put in for decades. It's a con.

The lithium graveyards are already vast.

The amount of infrastructure upgrades needed day to day is limited by resources and the time get there.

Non lithium high capacity battery tech and wireless electricity transfer need to be commercially available to all before that ever happens.

By then, new tech will have evolved rendering the EV movement obsolete.

Water. Hydrogen. Combustiable Biofuels. That is the future.

Imagine a Tesla and Model T Ford were left sealed in a barn for 50 years from now. You can be almost certain the Model T could be fired up quicker and be running again vs the Tesla.

I can't run a Makita electric drill from 35 years ago but can use a stanley hand drill from 1965.

Back to basics. Simpler things but improved efficiencies. Products today seem to be too clever in that they solve a lot of things, but a lot of the things they solve are self created that werent necessarily problems, sort of bloats and hyper inflates how good they really are.

Alexa does this with bulbs, Tesla does that with satnav. Turning a light on or using a map was never a problem per se, but both those items are deemed incredible.

EV still is the future IMO. The energy distribution network is there although it will require constant incremental improvements as EVs become more and more popular.

Battery tech will eventually move away from lithium. Solid state batteries will eventually become the norm with mass produced meta materials also helping battery / super capacitor technology.

[PayasYouRace]

Insane thought for a solution to get more noise from the current V6's.

Inspiration? CART 2000 season.

For some oval races Toyota had developed an engine (single turbo V8, 2.65 liter) on which only one of the cylinderbanks had the exhaust feeding the turbo, the other bank was exiting the exhaust gasses directly.

Crazy, impossible thought.

Would it be possible one way or the other to have the front pair and rear pair of cylinders feeding the turbo and the two center cylinders blowing off directly, thus not silenced by the turbo anymore?

Likely impossible due to the exhaust cycle of the engine all of a sudden missing two pulses.and the resulting pulses not smooth enough for the turbo.

OK then there is the ultimate solution based on the failed never raced Alfa Romeo 4-in-line of 1987 that had two turbos. Each exhaust valve had its one exhaust tube and thus each cylinder had two separate exhaust tubes, each feeding one of the two turbos, so each cylinder fed both turbos.

Create such for the current V6, each cylinder feeding the single turbo with one exhaust pipe but the second exhaust blowing off directly and unmuffled.
Will create a nightmare of a comples exhaust lay-out the will drive aerodynamicists crazy.
But what a challenge to design and create.

A plenum chamber between the combustion chamber and the turbine could smooth the exhaust flow meeting the turbine. It’s the same reason you have a plenum chamber before the inlet valves. A large chamber slows the gas flow, so any pulses will be absorbed in the chamber.

[Pete_f1]

Red Bull still building their own engine?

Where does Ford come in..?

[Counterbalance]

Red Bull still building their own engine?

Where does Ford come in..?

When RBPT and Horner need someone to blame if their PU isn’t the class of the field.

Having ran a quick Google search, it seems that Ford are providing their expertise in almost every area of PU development and manufacture.

[F1 Mike]

EV still is the future IMO. The energy distribution network is there although it will require constant incremental improvements as EVs become more and more popular.

Battery tech will eventually move away from lithium. Solid state batteries will eventually become the norm with mass produced meta materials also helping battery / super capacitor technology.

But again, leave it in a garage for a long time and it will go dead. When the apocalypse is upon us, we will need easily repairable vehicles and not a smartphone on wheels 😉

[SparkPlug86]

When RBPT and Horner need someone to blame if their PU isn’t the class of the field.

Having ran a quick Google search, it seems that Ford are providing their expertise in almost every area of PU development and manufacture.

 

Yeah, Ford need to get the naming rights to that motor haha 

[danmills]

But again, leave it in a garage for a long time and it will go dead. When the apocalypse is upon us, we will need easily repairable vehicles and not a smartphone on wheels

 

There's an entrapment conspiracy for you... the desire to rid of all the old cars and get everyone onto the EV boat. One tug of the plug, and everyones stuck.

 

Somehow the aviation and construction industry, the biggest contributors of pollution and waste materials, are not anywhere near pushing for more efficient technologies at the rate vehicles are.

 

Even if everyone ran electric cars, you can bet we will still be shipping strawberries from Chile to the UK and buying New Zealand Lamb in Tesco.

 

If carbon footprint and emissions and consumption was truly an issue, you'd attack the heart of the problem, not the fingernail tips.

 

The priorities and logic don't add up.

Edited by danmills, 28 April 2025 - 23:06.

[scolbourne]

Aviation could cut its emissions greatly by switching to methane as a fuel. With countries like Qatar sitting on huge methane resources , this should be easy to implement, once suitable  aircraft are available. Initially gas turbines would still be used , but this could switch to fuel cell and electric motors when this proved suitable. Maybe F1 should run methane and allow both methods of power delivery (ic or fuel cell ev).

[danmills]

And they say methane and cattle farming / consumption is affecting the ozone at devastating levels and thats why we're switching to fake meat lol.

 

Nothing adds up.

Edited by danmills, 30 April 2025 - 08:41.

[Wuzak]

Aviation could cut its emissions greatly by switching to methane as a fuel. With countries like Qatar sitting on huge methane resources , this should be easy to implement, once suitable  aircraft are available. Initially gas turbines would still be used , but this could switch to fuel cell and electric motors when this proved suitable. Maybe F1 should run methane and allow both methods of power delivery (ic or fuel cell ev).

 

Either way they would still produce emissions.

 

Fuel cells may reduce emissions by a bit, but I doubt burning methane in a turbine would reduce emissions much.

 

Also, Methane has to be stored in pressurised containers, which would be heavier than normal fuel tanks on aircraft.

[PayasYouRace]

Yeah methane is a carbon based compound so burning it doesn’t help with the release of carbon dioxide emissions. If you’re not producing that methane in a carbon neutral sustainable way there’s no advantage over fossil fuels.

[pdac]

Yeah methane is a carbon based compound so burning it doesn’t help with the release of carbon dioxide emissions. If you’re not producing that methane in a carbon neutral sustainable way there’s no advantage over fossil fuels.

 

Sustainability and emission control are different things. The reality is that the only way to effectively control emissions is to significantly reduce the amount of fuel we all use. That's not an option that will ever be on the table.

[PayasYouRace]

Sustainability and emission control are different things. The reality is that the only way to effectively control emissions is to significantly reduce the amount of fuel we all use. That's not an option that will ever be on the table.

Emissions control is the problem though. That’s what contributing to climate change. If we had a means to make fuel out of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere we could burn as much of it as we wanted as it would be a neutral process.

[7MGTEsup]

The bottom line is humans need to travel less and consume less. As a whole there is a lot of waste via unnecessary travel and transport of goods from all over the world like previously mentioned. I'm shocked sometimes by people’s usage of electric in their homes on the r/OctopusEnergy reditt.

 

Just think of the carbon footprint of any event where there is a large gathering of people and how many of those events are going on all ove the world every day. It all stacks up pretty quickly. 

Edited by 7MGTEsup, 30 April 2025 - 10:07.

[PayasYouRace]

The bottom line is humans need to travel less and consume less. As a whole there is a lot of waste via unnecessary travel and transport of goods from all over the world like previously mentioned. I'm shocked sometimes by people’s usage of electric in their homes on the r/OctopusEnergy reditt.

Just think of the carbon footprint of any event where there is a large gathering of people and how many of those events are going on all ove the world every day. It all stacks up pretty quickly.

Travel isn’t harmful in and of itself. If anything it’s healthy and promotes good community across the world. Doing it in a sustainable ecological manner is the challenge.

Waste is a problem though, and we should be doing everything we can to minimise real material waste. But the world would be a lot worse off if we had to spend our lives in the town we were born because we can travel anywhere, and had to subsist only with local resources.

[Beri]

Travel isn’t harmful in and of itself. If anything it’s healthy and promotes good community across the world. Doing it in a sustainable ecological manner is the challenge.
Waste is a problem though, and we should be doing everything we can to minimise real material waste. But the world would be a lot worse off if we had to spend our lives in the town we were born because we can travel anywhere, and had to subsist only with local resources.

The problem is that in your example; travel turns into tourism pretty quickly. And tourism is pretty much impossible to become carbon neutral in the broadest sense of tourism. From travelling to the destination, to heating the showers in your hotelroom, to consuming cheap (street)food with ingredients that are not gained in an ecological way, to the travels at your destination to seeing the touristic attractions. You won't save the environment by showing up to your destination in your EV alone.

[PayasYouRace]

Back to the dark ages it is then.

[kumo7]

solar cell battery e motor is the thing…

[7MGTEsup]

Back to the dark ages it is then.

 

It doesn't take much to make a significant difference if everyone puts in some effort. I bet a 10% reduction in global CO2 is doable over night if people were more careful about how they live their lives with only a small impact on their day to day. Turn the thermostat down by 2 degrees, accelerate away from traffic lights and roundabouts a bit slower don't have evrything in your house on standby, if you're not using it turn it off at th wall. Just a few small things like that can lower your carbon footprint by 10% pretty easily.

[pdac]

Back to the dark ages it is then.

 

Sadly, this is the only other option to accepting the consequences and mitigating against their effect (which is, really, what the world should be doing now)

Edited by pdac, 30 April 2025 - 11:21.

[Alfisti]

It doesn't take much to make a significant difference if everyone puts in some effort. I bet a 10% reduction in global CO2 is doable over night if people were more careful about how they live their lives with only a small impact on their day to day. Turn the thermostat down by 2 degrees, accelerate away from traffic lights and roundabouts a bit slower don't have evrything in your house on standby, if you're not using it turn it off at th wall. Just a few small things like that can lower your carbon footprint by 10% pretty easily.

 

Yeah... nahhh. The world came to a near standstill in April 2020, i mean to such a degree it was a life crushing slow down for hundreds of millions of people and global emissions dropped just 17%. We basically shut down everything bar the core essentials and barely made a dent.

[F1 Mike]

The problem is that in your example; travel turns into tourism pretty quickly. And tourism is pretty much impossible to become carbon neutral in the broadest sense of tourism. From travelling to the destination, to heating the showers in your hotelroom, to consuming cheap (street)food with ingredients that are not gained in an ecological way, to the travels at your destination to seeing the touristic attractions. You won't save the environment by showing up to your destination in your EV alone.

A few of those points make no difference. We're either showering and eating at home or we're doing it somewhere else.

The real problem is there are too many people on the planet.

[nivoglibina]

A few of those points make no difference. We're either showering and eating at home or we're doing it somewhere else.

The real problem is there are too many people on the planet.

Too many people in the US and Canada surely?

https://ourworldinda...ions-per-capita

 

The still is is some personal responsabily as you can see in the graph.

Edited by nivoglibina, 30 April 2025 - 13:32.

[7MGTEsup]

Yeah... nahhh. The world came to a near standstill in April 2020, i mean to such a degree it was a life crushing slow down for hundreds of millions of people and global emissions dropped just 17%. We basically shut down everything bar the core essentials and barely made a dent.

 

So you're saying that shutting everything off only dropped emissions by 17%, so where are those emissions coming from? If grounding all planes, ships and cars only dropped global emissions by 17% why are we hell bent on overhauling transport if homes and other infrastructure are responsible for 83% of emissions? 

 

Or was it 17% for that year meaning that a 1 quarter shut down meant 17% reduction?

Edited by 7MGTEsup, 30 April 2025 - 13:49.

[7MGTEsup]

The real problem is there are too many people on the planet.

 

So you're saying we need a purge..... I seem to recall a few films about that. Or the way we are heading it will happen in the next few years when someone presses the self distruct button due to an angry tweet (or are they called X's now?)

[Beri]

A few of those points make no difference. We're either showering and eating at home or we're doing it somewhere else.
The real problem is there are too many people on the planet.

Ofcourse, that is the main issue at hand. But showering at my place does make a difference with a heat pump and a solar boiler. Something the El Royal of Copacabana Beach likely doesn't have. Which is my point exactly. We can become ecologically friendly and carbon neutral all we want. But in the end we consume and use amenities during our regular life that are not. And being a traveller or tourist applies to this.

[Pete_f1]

Even if everyone ran electric cars, you can bet we will still be shipping strawberries from Chile to the UK and buying New Zealand Lamb in Tesco.

And it will still be cheaper that what's produced down the road.

[krea]

A few of those points make no difference. We're either showering and eating at home or we're doing it somewhere else.

The real problem is there are too many people on the planet.

 

Ironically the places with the most people have generally the lowest co2 output. The main problem are the rich people. 

[pdac]

Ironically the places with the most people have generally the lowest co2 output. The main problem are the rich people. 

 

And ... the ones who will be hit hardest by the effects of global warming will be the people in those countries with the most.

[scolbourne]

Yeah methane is a carbon based compound so burning it doesn’t help with the release of carbon dioxide emissions. If you’re not producing that methane in a carbon neutral sustainable way there’s no advantage over fossil fuels.

Methane and jet fuel have different CO2 emissions on a per-watt basis. Jet fuel produces a higher amount of CO2 for each watt of energy released,

 

This is because methane is a very simple molecule of CH4, so only one carbon atom to Jet A-1 which is long strings of carbon atoms The average formula for Jet A-1 is C10.8H21.6. This means the average molecule contains 10.8 carbon atoms and 21.6 hydrogen atoms.

[PayasYouRace]

Methane and jet fuel have different CO2 emissions on a per-watt basis. Jet fuel produces a higher amount of CO2 for each watt of energy released,

This is because methane is a very simple molecule of CH4, so only one carbon atom to Jet A-1 which is long strings of carbon atoms The average formula for Jet A-1 is C10.8H21.6. This means the average molecule contains 10.8 carbon atoms and 21.6 hydrogen atoms.

Ok but it’s still emitting CO2.

What the power density compared to jet fuel? Do you have to burn more for the same power? If I remember my GCSE chemistry the energy is release from breaking the bonds within the atoms.

[PayasYouRace]

So you're saying we need a purge..... I seem to recall a few films about that. Or the way we are heading it will happen in the next few years when someone presses the self distruct button due to an angry tweet (or are they called X's now?)

Luckily developed nations are reducing our birth rates. Maybe it’ll continue to catch on.

[pdac]

Talking methane ... Starship burns 0.6 tonnes of methane every second and 4500 tonnes for each launch. Elon Musk wants to increase to a launch every week.

[GreenMachine]

This thread badly needs a mod's attention.

[kumo7]

This thread badly needs a mod's attention.

the power, the biggest power source is the sun. No scientists, no economist can take the power from the free power source.

[pdac]

the power, the biggest power source is the sun. No scientists, no economist can take the power from the free power source.

 

For moving vehicles, it's all about being able to take the power source with you and harness its energy. That's what ICE does very well and which is why it'll continue to be part of the solution for years to come.